It's what you offered Arafat in 2001
Scores die in Israeli air strikes
- Thread starter IhabX7
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Israel acts because the world won't defend it
The scenes from Gaza are heartbreaking. But the whole conflict could be avoided if the Palestinians said one small thing
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article5461544.ece
The scenes from Gaza are heartbreaking. But the whole conflict could be avoided if the Palestinians said one small thing
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article5461544.ece
very good article!
I see. The Palestinians avoid building their society because of possible future exchanges with the IDF. Oh well, who need to build a country when those blokes from UNRWA are still around.
Can't reaaly discuss Zionism without mentioning Herzl, and then his expereinces as a journalist in Paris.
The situation is far, far more complicated than that, and no, I've no intention to go into details because the server isn't big enough (
) and I'm probably not the best person to do so anyway, because I certain there's plenty I don't know.Following is a transcripted excerpt from Fox News Sunday, April 21, 2002.
BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS: Former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross has worked to achieve Middle East peace throughout President Clinton's final days in office. In the months following Clinton's failed peace summit at Camp David, U.S. negotiators continued behind-the-scenes peace talks with the Palestinians and Israelis up until January 2001, and that followed Clinton's presentation of ideas at the end of December 2000.
Dennis Ross joins us now with more details on all that, and Fred Barnes joins the questioning.
So, Dennis, talk to us a little bit, if you can -- I might note that we're proud to able to say that you're a Fox News contributing analyst.
DENNIS ROSS: Thank you.
HUME: Talk to us about the sequence of events. The Camp David talks, there was an offer. That was rejected. Talks continued. You come now to December, and the president has a new set of ideas. What unfolded?
ROSS: Let me give you the sequence, because I think it puts all this in perspective.
Number one, at Camp David we did not put a comprehensive set of ideas on the table. We put ideas on the table that would have affected the borders and would have affected Jerusalem.
Arafat could not accept any of that. In fact, during the 15 days there, he never himself raised a single idea. His negotiators did, to be fair to them, but he didn't. The only new idea he raised at Camp David was that the temple didn't exist in Jerusalem, it existed in Nablus.
HUME: This is the temple where Ariel Sharon paid a visit, which was used as a kind of a pre-text for the beginning of the new intifada, correct?
ROSS: This is the core of the Jewish faith.
HUME: Right.
ROSS: So he was denying the core of the Jewish faith there.
After the summit, he immediately came back to us and he said, "We need to have another summit," to which we said, "We just shot our wad. We got a no from you. You're prepared actually do a deal before we go back to something like that."
He agreed to set up a private channel between his people and the Israelis, which I joined at the end of August. And there were serious discussions that went on, and we were poised to present our ideas the end of September, which is when the intifada erupted. He knew we were poised to present the ideas. His own people were telling him they looked good. And we asked him to intervene to ensure there wouldn't be violence after the Sharon visit, the day after. He said he would. He didn't lift a finger.
Now, eventually we were able to get back to a point where private channels between the two sides led each of them to again ask us to present the ideas. This was in early December. We brought the negotiators here.
HUME: Now, this was a request to the Clinton administration...
ROSS: Yes.
HUME: ... to formulate a plan. Both sides wanted this?
ROSS: Absolutely.
HUME: All right.
ROSS: Both sides asked us to present these ideas.
HUME: All right. And they were?
ROSS: The ideas were presented on December 23 by the president, and they basically said the following: On borders, there would be about a 5 percent annexation in the West Bank for the Israelis and a 2 percent swap. So there would be a net 97 percent of the territory that would go to the Palestinians.
On Jerusalem, the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capitol of the Palestinian state.
On the issue of refugees, there would be a right of return for the refugees to their own state, not to Israel, but there would also be a fund of $30 billion internationally that would be put together for either compensation or to cover repatriation, resettlement, rehabilitation costs.
And when it came to security, there would be a international presence, in place of the Israelis, in the Jordan Valley.
These were ideas that were comprehensive, unprecedented, stretched very far, represented a culmination of an effort in our best judgment as to what each side could accept after thousands of hours of debate, discussion with each side.
FRED BARNES, WEEKLY STANDARD: Now, Palestinian officials say to this day that Arafat said yes.
ROSS: Arafat came to the White House on January 2. Met with the president, and I was there in the Oval Office. He said yes, and then he added reservations that basically meant he rejected every single one of the things he was supposed to give.
HUME: What was he supposed to give?
ROSS: He supposed to give, on Jerusalem, the idea that there would be for the Israelis sovereignty over the Western Wall, which would cover the areas that are of religious significance to Israel. He rejected that.
HUME: He rejected their being able to have that?
ROSS: He rejected that.
He rejected the idea on the refugees. He said we need a whole new formula, as if what we had presented was non-existent.
He rejected the basic ideas on security. He wouldn't even countenance the idea that the Israelis would be able to operate in Palestinian airspace.
You know when you fly into Israel today you go to Ben Gurion. You fly in over the West Bank because you can't -- there's no space through otherwise. He rejected that.
So every single one of the ideas that was asked of him he rejected.
HUME: Now, let's take a look at the map. Now, this is what -- how the Israelis had created a map based on the president's ideas. And...
ROSS: Right.
HUME: ... what can we -- that situation shows that the territory at least is contiguous. What about Gaza on that map?
ROSS: The Israelis would have gotten completely out of Gaza.
ROSS: And what you see also in this line, they show an area of temporary Israeli control along the border.
HUME: Right.
ROSS: Now, that was an Israeli desire. That was not what we presented. But we presented something that did point out that it would take six years before the Israelis would be totally out of the Jordan Valley.
So that map there that you see, which shows a very narrow green space along the border, would become part of the orange. So the Palestinians would have in the West Bank an area that was contiguous. Those who say there were cantons, completely untrue. It was contiguous.
HUME: Cantons being ghettos, in effect...
ROSS: Right.
HUME: ... that would be cut off from other parts of the Palestinian state.
ROSS: Completely untrue.
And to connect Gaza with the West Bank, there would have been an elevated highway, an elevated railroad, to ensure that there would be not just safe passage for the Palestinians, but free passage.
BARNES: I have two other questions. One, the Palestinians point out that this was never put on paper, this offer. Why not?
[B
BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS: Former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross has worked to achieve Middle East peace throughout President Clinton's final days in office. In the months following Clinton's failed peace summit at Camp David, U.S. negotiators continued behind-the-scenes peace talks with the Palestinians and Israelis up until January 2001, and that followed Clinton's presentation of ideas at the end of December 2000.
Dennis Ross joins us now with more details on all that, and Fred Barnes joins the questioning.
So, Dennis, talk to us a little bit, if you can -- I might note that we're proud to able to say that you're a Fox News contributing analyst.
DENNIS ROSS: Thank you.
HUME: Talk to us about the sequence of events. The Camp David talks, there was an offer. That was rejected. Talks continued. You come now to December, and the president has a new set of ideas. What unfolded?
ROSS: Let me give you the sequence, because I think it puts all this in perspective.
Number one, at Camp David we did not put a comprehensive set of ideas on the table. We put ideas on the table that would have affected the borders and would have affected Jerusalem.
Arafat could not accept any of that. In fact, during the 15 days there, he never himself raised a single idea. His negotiators did, to be fair to them, but he didn't. The only new idea he raised at Camp David was that the temple didn't exist in Jerusalem, it existed in Nablus.
HUME: This is the temple where Ariel Sharon paid a visit, which was used as a kind of a pre-text for the beginning of the new intifada, correct?
ROSS: This is the core of the Jewish faith.
HUME: Right.
ROSS: So he was denying the core of the Jewish faith there.
After the summit, he immediately came back to us and he said, "We need to have another summit," to which we said, "We just shot our wad. We got a no from you. You're prepared actually do a deal before we go back to something like that."
He agreed to set up a private channel between his people and the Israelis, which I joined at the end of August. And there were serious discussions that went on, and we were poised to present our ideas the end of September, which is when the intifada erupted. He knew we were poised to present the ideas. His own people were telling him they looked good. And we asked him to intervene to ensure there wouldn't be violence after the Sharon visit, the day after. He said he would. He didn't lift a finger.
Now, eventually we were able to get back to a point where private channels between the two sides led each of them to again ask us to present the ideas. This was in early December. We brought the negotiators here.
HUME: Now, this was a request to the Clinton administration...
ROSS: Yes.
HUME: ... to formulate a plan. Both sides wanted this?
ROSS: Absolutely.
HUME: All right.
ROSS: Both sides asked us to present these ideas.
HUME: All right. And they were?
ROSS: The ideas were presented on December 23 by the president, and they basically said the following: On borders, there would be about a 5 percent annexation in the West Bank for the Israelis and a 2 percent swap. So there would be a net 97 percent of the territory that would go to the Palestinians.
On Jerusalem, the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capitol of the Palestinian state.
On the issue of refugees, there would be a right of return for the refugees to their own state, not to Israel, but there would also be a fund of $30 billion internationally that would be put together for either compensation or to cover repatriation, resettlement, rehabilitation costs.
And when it came to security, there would be a international presence, in place of the Israelis, in the Jordan Valley.
These were ideas that were comprehensive, unprecedented, stretched very far, represented a culmination of an effort in our best judgment as to what each side could accept after thousands of hours of debate, discussion with each side.
FRED BARNES, WEEKLY STANDARD: Now, Palestinian officials say to this day that Arafat said yes.
ROSS: Arafat came to the White House on January 2. Met with the president, and I was there in the Oval Office. He said yes, and then he added reservations that basically meant he rejected every single one of the things he was supposed to give.
HUME: What was he supposed to give?
ROSS: He supposed to give, on Jerusalem, the idea that there would be for the Israelis sovereignty over the Western Wall, which would cover the areas that are of religious significance to Israel. He rejected that.
HUME: He rejected their being able to have that?
ROSS: He rejected that.
He rejected the idea on the refugees. He said we need a whole new formula, as if what we had presented was non-existent.
He rejected the basic ideas on security. He wouldn't even countenance the idea that the Israelis would be able to operate in Palestinian airspace.
You know when you fly into Israel today you go to Ben Gurion. You fly in over the West Bank because you can't -- there's no space through otherwise. He rejected that.
So every single one of the ideas that was asked of him he rejected.
HUME: Now, let's take a look at the map. Now, this is what -- how the Israelis had created a map based on the president's ideas. And...
ROSS: Right.
HUME: ... what can we -- that situation shows that the territory at least is contiguous. What about Gaza on that map?
ROSS: The Israelis would have gotten completely out of Gaza.
ROSS: And what you see also in this line, they show an area of temporary Israeli control along the border.
HUME: Right.
ROSS: Now, that was an Israeli desire. That was not what we presented. But we presented something that did point out that it would take six years before the Israelis would be totally out of the Jordan Valley.
So that map there that you see, which shows a very narrow green space along the border, would become part of the orange. So the Palestinians would have in the West Bank an area that was contiguous. Those who say there were cantons, completely untrue. It was contiguous.
HUME: Cantons being ghettos, in effect...
ROSS: Right.
HUME: ... that would be cut off from other parts of the Palestinian state.
ROSS: Completely untrue.
And to connect Gaza with the West Bank, there would have been an elevated highway, an elevated railroad, to ensure that there would be not just safe passage for the Palestinians, but free passage.
BARNES: I have two other questions. One, the Palestinians point out that this was never put on paper, this offer. Why not?
[B
]ROSS[/B]: We presented this to them so that they could record it. When the president presented it, he went over it at dictation speed. He then left the cabinet room. I stayed behind. I sat with them to be sure, and checked to be sure that every single word.
The reason we did it this way was to be sure they had it and they could record it. But we told the Palestinians and Israelis, if you cannot accept these ideas, this is the culmination of the effort, we withdraw them. We did not want to formalize it. We wanted them to understand we meant what we said. You don't accept it, it's not for negotiation, this is the end of it, we withdraw it.
So that's why they have it themselves recorded. And to this day, the Palestinians have not presented to their own people what was available.
BARNES: In other words, Arafat might use it as a basis for further negotiations so he'd get more?
ROSS[/B]: Well, exactly.
HUME: Which is what, in fact, he tried to do, according to your account.
ROSS: We treated it as not only a culmination. We wanted to be sure it couldn't be a floor for negotiations.
HUME: Right.
ROSS: It couldn't be a ceiling. It was the roof.
HUME: This was a final offer?
ROSS: Exactly. Exactly right.
HUME: This was the solution.
BARNES: Was Arafat alone in rejecting it? I mean, what about his negotiators?
ROSS: It's very clear to me that his negotiators understood this was the best they were ever going to get. They wanted him to accept it. He was not prepared to accept it.
HUME: Now, it is often said that this whole sequence of talks here sort of fell apart or ended or broke down or whatever because of the intervention of the Israeli elections. What about that?
ROSS: The real issue you have to understand was not the Israeli elections. It was the end of the Clinton administration. The reason we would come with what was a culminating offer was because we were out of time.
They asked us to present the ideas, both sides. We were governed by the fact that the Clinton administration was going to end, and both sides said we understand this is the point of decision.
HUME: What, in your view, was the reason that Arafat, in effect, said no?
ROSS: Because fundamentally I do not believe he can end the conflict. We had one critical clause in this agreement, and that clause was, this is the end of the conflict.
Arafat's whole life has been governed by struggle and a cause. Everything he has done as leader of the Palestinians is to always leave his options open, never close a door. He was being asked here, you've got to close the door. For him to end the conflict is to end himself.
HUME: Might it not also have been true, though, Dennis, that, because the intifada had already begun -- so you had the Camp David offer rejected, the violence begins anew, a new offer from the Clinton administration comes along, the Israelis agree to it, Barak agrees to it...
ROSS: Yes.
HUME: ... might he not have concluded that the violence was working?
ROSS: It is possible he concluded that. It is possible he thought he could do and get more with the violence. There's no doubt in my mind that he thought the violence would create pressure on the Israelis and on us and maybe the rest of the world.
And I think there's one other factor. You have to understand that Barak was able to reposition Israel internationally. Israel was seen as having demonstrated unmistakably it wanted peace, and the reason it wasn't available, achievable was because Arafat wouldn't accept it.
Arafat needed to re-establish the Palestinians as a victim, and unfortunately they are a victim, and we see it now in a terrible way.
HUME: Dennis Ross, thank you so much.
The reason we did it this way was to be sure they had it and they could record it. But we told the Palestinians and Israelis, if you cannot accept these ideas, this is the culmination of the effort, we withdraw them. We did not want to formalize it. We wanted them to understand we meant what we said. You don't accept it, it's not for negotiation, this is the end of it, we withdraw it.
So that's why they have it themselves recorded. And to this day, the Palestinians have not presented to their own people what was available.
BARNES: In other words, Arafat might use it as a basis for further negotiations so he'd get more?
ROSS[/B]: Well, exactly.
HUME: Which is what, in fact, he tried to do, according to your account.
ROSS: We treated it as not only a culmination. We wanted to be sure it couldn't be a floor for negotiations.
HUME: Right.
ROSS: It couldn't be a ceiling. It was the roof.
HUME: This was a final offer?
ROSS: Exactly. Exactly right.
HUME: This was the solution.
BARNES: Was Arafat alone in rejecting it? I mean, what about his negotiators?
ROSS: It's very clear to me that his negotiators understood this was the best they were ever going to get. They wanted him to accept it. He was not prepared to accept it.
HUME: Now, it is often said that this whole sequence of talks here sort of fell apart or ended or broke down or whatever because of the intervention of the Israeli elections. What about that?
ROSS: The real issue you have to understand was not the Israeli elections. It was the end of the Clinton administration. The reason we would come with what was a culminating offer was because we were out of time.
They asked us to present the ideas, both sides. We were governed by the fact that the Clinton administration was going to end, and both sides said we understand this is the point of decision.
HUME: What, in your view, was the reason that Arafat, in effect, said no?
ROSS: Because fundamentally I do not believe he can end the conflict. We had one critical clause in this agreement, and that clause was, this is the end of the conflict.
Arafat's whole life has been governed by struggle and a cause. Everything he has done as leader of the Palestinians is to always leave his options open, never close a door. He was being asked here, you've got to close the door. For him to end the conflict is to end himself.
HUME: Might it not also have been true, though, Dennis, that, because the intifada had already begun -- so you had the Camp David offer rejected, the violence begins anew, a new offer from the Clinton administration comes along, the Israelis agree to it, Barak agrees to it...
ROSS: Yes.
HUME: ... might he not have concluded that the violence was working?
ROSS: It is possible he concluded that. It is possible he thought he could do and get more with the violence. There's no doubt in my mind that he thought the violence would create pressure on the Israelis and on us and maybe the rest of the world.
And I think there's one other factor. You have to understand that Barak was able to reposition Israel internationally. Israel was seen as having demonstrated unmistakably it wanted peace, and the reason it wasn't available, achievable was because Arafat wouldn't accept it.
Arafat needed to re-establish the Palestinians as a victim, and unfortunately they are a victim, and we see it now in a terrible way.
HUME: Dennis Ross, thank you so much.
Just read about them, apparently not. I doubt many know of the affair and even then, as I did not, know of the effect it had on Herzl.
Strip Maul, by the Daily Show with Jon Stewart
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=213380&title=Strip-Maul
Just when I thought the most moronic statement had been shown... comes NYC mayor Bloomberg.
And I though my analogies were, at times, fecked up.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=213380&title=Strip-Maul
Just when I thought the most moronic statement had been shown... comes NYC mayor Bloomberg.
And I though my analogies were, at times, fecked up.
Jon Stewart's response wasn't much better either.
For a Jewish guy, I was suprised by his response...
(Then again, he is from Jersey)
Which part of his commentary bothered you?
Surprise, the Americans blame the Palestinians for not accepting apartheid
As South African Minister of Home Affairs Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi declared during a visit to Israel in 2003, “The Israeli regime is not apartheid. It is a unique case of democracy.” Apartheid was a legal system that enforced discrimination, segregation and oppression based on skin color. Israel is the opposite. Its legal system enforces equal civil and political rights for all citizens regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation"
Unlike every other Muslim country.
That doesn't apply to the millions of Palestinians in the occupied territories, they can work in Israel but don't get the benefits as other Israelis, apartheid.
Thats what happens when you're not citizens. The black South Africans were.
They are not allowed citizenship though their territory is occupied by Israel, apartheid
Who to believe about apartheid-
South African Minister of Home Affairs Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi
or Mozza?
South African Minister of Home Affairs Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi
or Mozza?
I'd go with the reality on the ground
It's a bit of a stupid point Finkelstein makes, because the "one small thing" he's asking them to do is renounce their dream of a return to a national home in Israel, which is what the whole conflict is about. At some point they're going to have to do it, but it's hardly a "small thing", and it's not going to happen without significantly more concessions than they've got so far.
My issue with the article is that getting out of Gaza is not the same thing as getting out of the West Bank. The first was easier, the second is something that Israel simply won't or can't do.
Yet it's essential to a two state solution.
Yet it's essential to a two state solution.
It's a load of sentimental claptrap which appears to try to excuse Israel's poor treatment of the Palestinians on the grounds that Jews have been treated badly in the past by others.
They are right to attack Gaza, even though the timing seems rather political (between US administrations, their own election coming up, good time to try to gain some reputation back after losing in Lebanon).
I have some sympathy for Storey's view - if you want to be a country, and claim to be a democracy, you've got to act properly and be held to high standards of behaviour, independently of previous history and of anyone else's behaviour.
However, this also applies to Hamas.
I have some sympathy for Storey's view - if you want to be a country, and claim to be a democracy, you've got to act properly and be held to high standards of behaviour, independently of previous history and of anyone else's behaviour.
However, this also applies to Hamas.
To give the IDF some credibility... (if this video is legit)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBKGOXfh94c&feature=related
Still, the IDF might have done better to take these rocket launchers out with more wisely, as in a ground attack.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBKGOXfh94c&feature=related
Still, the IDF might have done better to take these rocket launchers out with more wisely, as in a ground attack.
At about a quarter to six Fivelive interviewed a medical student in Beersheba, she said that approximately four hours ago a rocket landed in between where she lived and a school, though thankfully no casualties. It actually was a good interview i thought, i'll try and see if there's a link on the BBC site somewhere. There haven't been loads like in the mainstream broadcast media thus far.
Speaking of rockets, there have reportedly only been 9 rockets launched into Israel today. Whether Hamas have decided to save what they have or have suffered critical damage in recent days, it is nto easy to tell from wherw we sit here.
Speaking of rockets, there have reportedly only been 9 rockets launched into Israel today. Whether Hamas have decided to save what they have or have suffered critical damage in recent days, it is nto easy to tell from wherw we sit here.
There's a much better written and better thought-through article in te Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine
Nah, it's pretty poor, just written from the other side. Having said that, it actually brings up the issue of the West Bank, which is the bigger problem, so I actually agree with it more.
It's not really Israel's fault if Arab countries don't democratise, and even democracies are entitled to attack other democracies if their governments are hostile.
There's not really a permanent military solution to the Hamas rockets, but then there's no such thing as a permanent military solution (only ceasefires).
Israel needs to negotiate in good faith about the West Bank. The situation in Gaza is a distraction to that. The article brings that up nicely, but fails to hammer that home.
It's not poor at all even if you don't agree with it. And it's not 'other side' since it supports Israel but not Greater Israel.
http://www.onejerusalem.org/2009/01/exclusive-one-jerusalem-interv.php
AUDIO EXCLUSIVE :: ONE JERUSALEM INTERVIEW WITH ISRAELI GENERAL EFFIE EITAM (RES)
General Effie Eitam, a senior member of the Knesset's Security and Foreign Affairs Committee, provides a wide-ranging briefing for journalists, hosted by One Jerusalem.
Worth listening to. Seems like the Hamas is nearly completely destroyed. The airstrikes have been a disaster for them, the few remaining gangsters are hiding in tunnels, hospitals, etc.
There are also plans to move large groups of the civilian population (up to 400.000) 10km away from Gaza city to the south of Gaza to ensure that humanitarian aid really gets to the people. The goal is too isolate the civilians and move them out of combat zone. Gaza City will for the next few weeks remain a 'free hunting zone' for the remaining Hamas terrorists.
AUDIO EXCLUSIVE :: ONE JERUSALEM INTERVIEW WITH ISRAELI GENERAL EFFIE EITAM (RES)
General Effie Eitam, a senior member of the Knesset's Security and Foreign Affairs Committee, provides a wide-ranging briefing for journalists, hosted by One Jerusalem.
Worth listening to. Seems like the Hamas is nearly completely destroyed. The airstrikes have been a disaster for them, the few remaining gangsters are hiding in tunnels, hospitals, etc.
There are also plans to move large groups of the civilian population (up to 400.000) 10km away from Gaza city to the south of Gaza to ensure that humanitarian aid really gets to the people. The goal is too isolate the civilians and move them out of combat zone. Gaza City will for the next few weeks remain a 'free hunting zone' for the remaining Hamas terrorists.
but there is a difference between 8 year olds afraid of rockets and 8 year olds being under constant bombardments by super-modern weapons, and many dying as a result?
I understand the suffering of Israeli civilians, but to inflict a hundred times that suffering on the Palestinian civilians is not on.
Not as long as they keep firing tens of rockets a day they're not.
but let's look at the facts. There was a truce, it could've been renewed. One condition of it was the lifting of the blockade: never happened. On 4/11/08, Israel made an incursion into Gaza, after which rocket attacks intensified. The blockade was worse than ever: international aid agencies were denied access (how does international aid benifit the militants).
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n01/roy_01_.html
Plus there were things like this
http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=495
It is very easy to blame HAMAS totally, but Israel is doing a lot more than just responding to it. The restriction on international aid was a particularily damning thing that showed Israel is interested in starving the whole of Gaza into submission, and not just fighting HAMAS.
The difference is, whether you believe it or not, that Israel has no intention of targeting and killing civilians. The Hamas however has every intention of targeting and killing civilians- the more the better.
Nor is it the plan. But when you've got Hamas men hiding in populated areas, you've got to make a choice. Protect our people or protect their people. Frankly, it's a no brainer.
From what the Gen. Eitam is saying those rockets is all that remains (and they are getting fewer and fewer) and he hopes that very soon they will stop completely.
Look at what Hamas got into the Gaza strip - tons of weapons, rockets. Did you expect us to just remove the blockade so they can have easier access?
By the way, an early condition for removing the blockade was to start serious negotiations for the release of Israeli soldier Gilat Shalit. That never happened, of course. Hamas are probably happier seeing the anguish of Israel over their hold of him.
I know I said I wouldnt post an opinion here again but those of you genuinely holding an neutral stance in this conflict I urge you to read this article, it sums up exactly why im frustrated being a westerner.
So as long as I only target military personnel I can kill millions of innocent people, right?
Intention only matters so much. If you know that your attacks will kill civilians as well as militants, you are effectively targeting those civilians as well.
well, the condition of the truce was to remove the blockade. And smuggling of weapons is no reason to not let intenational aid agencies in.